Securitization of National Interests

SECURITIZATION OF NATIONAL INTERESTSIn the decades following the end of the cold war, the field of security studies has seen new ways of thinking about international security. Dominant paradigms have been challenged by academics unsatisfied with existing concepts, looking to explain security in a transformed and globalized world. Primarily, they sought to move security studies beyond theories that recognized only military threats as challenges to State security. One leading approach to conceptualizing security is that of the Copenhagen school and their theory of securitization. Buzan, Weaver and Jaap de Wilde are the main proponents of Copenhagen School; their aim has been widening and deepening the concept of security to accommodate it to a new, post-cold war global political order. Securitization theory radically diverts from the traditional realist and neorealist principles in that it adopts social constructivism to understanding security. Unlike these earlier traditions, securitization theory conceptualizes security as discursively established, dismissing outright the notion of objective threats. It also breaks from realist and neorealist traditions in introducing the concept “society” alongside the State as an object that can be threatened and therefore needing analysis. When security is considered a process that is subject to moral evaluation, this idea or concept is called securitization. This paper will use constructivism theory to show how national interests are securitized because Constructivists hold that state interests are not “discovered” but “constructed” and that national security policy is not “formulated” by rational actors, but it’s shaped by contested identities and other social factors such as the norms and cultures within a society. According to McSweeny, Constructivism forces us to not only consider a wider variety of threats, but gives us ways to better understand the concept of Securitization.Buzan and Waever claim, for instance, that securitization is ‘constructivist all the way down’ with Weaver insisting that moreover it is ‘radically constructivist’ In, “Security: A new Framework for Analysis”, Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, and Jaap de Wilde argue that security can be broadened to include other threats beyond the traditional military and political domain. In general, Buzan et al, argue that security depends on the character of the referent object in question, meaning that Buzan et al understood the significance of core values, threats and capabilities. Securitized, according to Buzan et al, means that the issue is “presented as an existential threat, requiring emergency measures and justifying actions outside the normal bounds of political procedure and defining securitization as a successful speech act through which an inter-subjective understanding is constructed within a political community to treat something as an existential threat to a valued referent object, and to enable a call for urgent and exceptional measures to deal with the threat.” In order to understand why certain threats are securitized, further explanation is necessary. Firstly, an existential threat is more important than other issues, thus taking priority due to its incompatibility with the actor’s core values. Secondly, extraordinary measures are warranted in order to counter the objective or subjective threat. This suggests that an actor can break normal political rules such as, “commanding secrecy, levying taxes or conscription, placing limitations on otherwise inviolable rights, or focusing society’s energy and resources on a specific task”.

This, according to Buzan et al does not mean that an actor must adopt extraordinary measures, “only that the existential threat has to be argued and just gain enough resources for a platform to be made from which it is possible to legitimize emergency measures or other special measures that would not have been possible had the discourse not taken the form of existential threat, point...

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

...Nations, like individuals, have interests--derived from their innate values and perceived purposes--which motivate their actions. Nationalinterests are a nation's perceived needs and aspirations in relation to its international environment.
Categorization of nationalinterests :
1. Survival(Critical)
These represent the single most important interests for any actor. This is the very essence of the actor’s existence – the protection of its citizens and their institution from attack by enemies (foreign and domestic). It addresses an imminent threat of attack and is an interest that cannot be compromised. If not attained, it will bring costs that are catastrophic, or nearly so. Whatever can be done would be done to ensure the survival of the actor, to include the use of military force.
2. Vital(Dangerous)
A vital interests exist when an issue is so important to an actor’s well being that its leadership can only compromise up to a certain point. Beyond that point, compromise is no longer possible because the potential harm to the actor would no longer be tolerable. If the interest is achieved, it would bring great benefit to the actor, if denied, it would carry costs to the actor that are severe but no catastrophic. Such costs could severely prejudice but not strictly imperil the ability of the actor’s government to safeguard and enhance...

...﻿Name: Meaza Gidey
ID: 2013101276
Human or National (Traditional Security)
If the interests of national (state) security and human security collided, which do you consider first between state security and human security? Why do you think so?
Even though today, many individuals are victims, not of foreign military aggression and nuclear war, but of violence committed against them by their own state, criminals, terrorist attacks, nature, diseases and poverty; and usually traditional or national Security paradigm has no place for most of these threats, ignoring it totally and shift to Human security will not do any good mainly for the following reasons:
1. Human Security by definition is very wide and vague at times; if individuals are the referent object of human security, the course will become too big and vague to have both theoretical and practical utilities. It will be very difficult to enact laws and regulations that can meet up to every referent object’s need.
2. Human Security sometimes is not any different from national security, especially when it considers collectivity of people as it’s referent object since the state can also be included in that category since it’s the highest and largest political collectivity of people sharing common national identity.
3. The interventionist characteristics of human security would greatly disturb international security and peace because it...

...NationalInterest
The world politics revolves round the term nationalinterest. The history is as old as the history of world. The concept of Nationalinterest is indistinct and carries a meaning according to the milieu in which it is used by the states. The term nationalinterest gained currency with the emergence of nation state system following the end of WWII, Nationalinterest become a tool to increase political control and the expansion of economic relations (Thompson, 1966). Nationalinterest is the long term and continuing ends established by states for which they manoeuvre and acts. All and sundry states are bound to procure these goals. Some countries of west Europe in order to gain their interest pursued the white Man’s burden policy. They regarded it their duty to uplift the deteriorated conditions of their brethren in yellow mans Asia or in the black man’s Africa.
The political and strategic philosophers had classified nationalinterest into diverse categories. The primary interests of a nation are the preservation of physical boundary, political system and cultural identity of the state against possible encroachments from outside powerful state. These interests are permanent and the state must guard them at all costs....

...China Essay
Evaluate the extent to which a specific Asia-pacific state has been successful in achieving its nationalinterests.
China is firmly positioned as a superpower in both the Asia-Pacific region, and the global political arena. Some issues, however, have prevented China from fulfilling its nationalinterests including territorial integrity, economic prosperity, a harmonious society, and a peaceful rise to power.
Territorial Integrity:
The PRC’s desire for territorial integrity means that China must remain ‘whole’ at all costs. As a state with a population of over 1.3 billion, China will undoubtedly encounter social problems particularly when 100 million of its population are not ‘ethnic Chinese’. The state’s ‘One China’ policy does not have room for secessionists. This has been demonstrated through the suppression of the continuing protest by the Uighars. The 2009 Riots in the Xinjiang Autonomous Region, which contains a majority Uighar population, proved that there will continue to be deep-seeded social issues if the Chinese government wishes to maintain their forceful policy in keeping these people in PRC.
Taiwan continues to be a contentious issue for the Chinese government. Despite Taiwan having recognised sovereignty by 23 states, the PRC refuses to grant such recognition in the interests of the One China policy. The PRC remains vigilant in disallowing Taiwan’s secession from the...

...factors that shape the nationalinterest in one Asia-Pacific state you have studied this year.
Nationalinterest outlines the goals or objectives of foreign policy and is used as an all-embracing concept to justify policy preferences and actions. These commonly guide the interactions that occur in the global political arena. China’s key nationalinterests consist of economic development, secession and territorial integrity, creating a harmonious society and a peaceful rise within the international community. The People’s Republic of China is widely believed to be the world’s next superpower by 2030 so the pursuit of these nationalinterests is important in maintaining their strong economy to help prevent secession and create harmony amongst its citizen thus creating a positive image in the global community.
China’s economic growth has been a remarkable development in post-Cold War Asia-Pacific. China’s average economic growth rate of 10% in 2008 is better than any other economy in the Asia Pacific region and has become the 2nd largest global tender. This shows the economic power China has in the international community and the importance of maintaining this in order to preserve China’s nationalinterest and guide their interactions with other states in the world. President Hu was quoted saying that China “must focus on economic...

...My theme investigation examines that countries do not have permanent friends and permanent enemies but only have permanent interests. I have chosen texts from novel, short story, non-fiction books, magazines, newspapers and internet sites. The texts describe permanent interests of countries that cause wars to occur, the change of alliances and current political policies of countries toward warfare. My report outlines three key connections about permanent interests of countries that I made between the texts.
What are the principle reasons for nations to go to war?
Nations go to war because of beliefs, alliances and resources. The website, “Cause of World War I”, reveals that wars occur because of leaders’ aggression and alliances between nations. German Kaiser William II wanted to have dominance over Great Britain and France. The alliances formed between nations caused the large number of countries to be involved in the war. Russia’s willingness to support Serbia and the strong bond between Germany and Austria-Hungary caused these countries to be involved when Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. The alliance of the Central Powers and Entente Powers caused the involvement of Great Britain, France and the Ottoman Empire. The same reason is echoed in Remarque’s novel, All Quiet on the Western Front, when Paul Baumer stated the reason for the First World War: “generals and emperors need at least one war in their life or they...

...Hegemonic Internationalism, Pursuit of NationalInterests?
Hegemonic internationalism by definition is a paradox within itself. Internationalism suggests cooperation among nations for common good, while hegemony is an instance when one nation has power over another nation. This leads to the belief that hegemonic internationalism is, in reality, one nation pursuing its own nationalinterests at the expense of other nation. Nazi Germany, Iran and the United States are all examples of a nation pursuing hegemonic internationalism.
Hitler ultimately wanted to establish a New Order of absolute Nazi German hegemony in Europe. To achieve this, he pursued a foreign policy with the declared goal of seizing Lebensraum ("living space") for the Aryan people; directing the resources of the state towards this goal. This included the rearmament of Germany, which was utilized in 1939 when Nazi Germany invaded Poland. In response, the United Kingdom and France declared war against Germany, leading to the outbreak of World War II in Europe. There are many forms of hegemonic internationalism and Nazi Germany pursued this by the most obvious way possible: by invading them for the “good of Germany”. This solidifies the belief that hegemonic internationalism is, in reality, one nation pursuing its own nationalinterests at the expense of another nation. Hitler did what he believed would make Germany...